Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7.A <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />HSR system, how those concerns might be addressed, and our collective <br />preferences and opinions about the alternatives presented by the HSR Authority. <br />Each community member was given three colored adhesive dots: one to indicate <br />his/her preferred choice for vertical alignment, one to indicate second choice for <br />vertical alignment, and one to indicate the feast preferred vertical alignment. <br />Participants placed these dots on a chart at each table, to visually indicate their <br />preferences. A meeting summary is included in this letter as Attachment A, and <br />a summary of the "dot" exercise is included as Attachment B. In the summary, <br />the four-track Aerial and open trench designs are the least preferable alternatives <br />from our community's perspective. We appreciate the removal (from further <br />consideration) of the berm option and the at-grade option in section 4C. <br /> <br />We have attached a summary of the community's comments, as well as a consolidated <br />visual overview of participants' overall preferences among the vertical alignments. The <br />community's input was taken into consideration in the production of the City's official <br />comments, and we believe that it will be of value as the HSR moves forward with its <br />Supplemental AA Report. <br /> <br />Redwood City Questions and concerns: <br /> <br />Following their initial review of the Preliminary AA Report, Redwood City staff members <br />prepared a list of questions and concerns, which is included in this letter as Attachment <br />C. We look forward to your response and further clarification regarding these items. <br /> <br />Challenaes: <br /> <br />There are several challenges associated with the vertical alignment options requiring <br />grade separation as outlined in the Preliminary AA Report. <br /> <br />Grade separations are costly to build, the footprint extends far into the community, and <br />they may cut off through-access for motorists and pedestrians. For this reason, <br />alternatives that avoid grade separation should be given more merit. <br /> <br />If Caltrain's vertical transition (from either aerial or in trench, to at-grade) starts at <br />Sequoia Station, grade separations will be required at Main Street Maple Street and <br />Chestnut Street. Additionally, a grade separation at Chestnut Street may extend far <br />enough to the east to interfere with the existing Seaport rail spur. These are challenges <br />that must be resolved. A transition beginning further south could avoid these grade <br />separations. <br /> <br />If the tracks are elevated when crossing Woodside Road, requiring Woodside Road to <br />be rebuilt as an underpass, the cost and right-of-way impacts of this construction will be <br />very significant. The underpass would most likely need to extend beyond EI Camino <br />Real to the west. <br /> <br />Freight operations to the Dumbarton and the Seaport spur rails must be maintained in <br />order to preserve economic vitality of the industrial areas in Redwood City. In order to <br />maintain freight operations, Caltrain and the spur tracks must be at grade at Redwood <br />Junction, since Caltrain and the freight trains share the same tracks. <br /> <br />3 <br />